Peters, Application for Reconsideration by, [2025] PBRA 276 (17 December 2025) [2025] PBRA 276

PBRA
Peters, Application for Reconsideration by, [2025] PBRA 276 (17 December 2025)
[2025] PBRA 276 · 2025-10-31
[1]This is an application by Peters (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 31 October 2025 not to direct release.[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2024) (the Parole Board Rules) provides that applications for reconsideration may be made in eligible cases (as set out in rule 28(2)) either on the basis(a) that the decision contains an error of law,(b) that it is irrational and/or(c) that it is procedurally unfair. This is an eligible case, and the application was made in time.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the oral hearing decision, the dossier consisting of 651 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 16 November 2025. It has been drafted by representatives on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision is both irrational and procedurally unfair.[5]The submission is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Background[6]The Applicant received an extended sentence of 13 years imprisonment following his guilty plea on 9 December 2016 to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The sentence was made up of a custodial term of 9 years and an extended licence period of 4 years.[7]The Applicant was aged 34 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 43 years old. Current parole review[8]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing via videoconference on 27 October 2025. The panel consisted of two independent members and a psychologist member. It heard oral evidence from the Applicant together with his Prison Offender Manger (POM), Community Offender Manger (COM) and prison commissioned senior psychologist. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing. The Respondent was not represented by an advocate. 10.The panel did not direct the Applicant's release. The Relevant Law[11]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 31 October 2025 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[12]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules provides the types of decision which are eligible for reconsideration. Decisions concerning whether the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence are eligible for reconsideration whether made by a paper panel (rule 19(1)(a) or (b)) or by an oral hearing panel after an oral hearing (rule 25(1)) or by an oral hearing panel which makes the decision on the papers (rule 21(7)). Decisions concerning the termination, amendment, or dismissal of an IPP licence are also eligible for reconsideration (rule 31(6) or rule 31(6A)).[13]Rule 28(2) of the Parole Board Rules provides the sentence types which are eligible for reconsideration. These are indeterminate sentences (rule 28(2)(a)), extended sentences (rule 28(2)(b)), certain types of determinate sentence subject to initial release by the Parole Board (rule 28(2)(c)) and serious terrorism sentences (rule 28(2)(d)). Irrationality 14.The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent tribunal on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses Ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene in these words:
" if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere"
. The same test applies to a reconsideration panel when determining an application on the basis of irrationality. 15.In R(DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board 2018 EWHC 694 (Admin) a Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board hearings in these words at para 116:
"the issue is whether the release decision was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. " 16.In R(on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board 2019 EWHC 2710 (Admin) Saini J set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law which was "to test the decision maker's ultimate conclusion against the evidence before it and to ask whether the conclusion can (with due deference and with regard to the panel's expertise) be safely justified on the basis of that evidence, particularly in a context where anxious scrutiny needs to be applied"
. This test was adopted by a Divisional Court in the case of R(on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice) -v- the Parole Board 2022 EWHC 1282 (Admin). 17.As was made clear by Saini J this is not a different test to the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of and application of the Wednesbury test in parole hearings as explained in DSD was binding on Saini J. 18.It follows from those principles that in considering an application for reconsideration the reconsideration panel will not substitute its view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses. Further while the views of the professional witnesses must be properly considered by a panel deciding on release, the panel is not bound to accept their assessment. The panel must however make clear in its reasons why it is disagreeing with the assessment of the witnesses. Procedural unfairness Procedural unfairness means that there was some procedural impropriety or unfairness resulting in the proceedings being fundamentally flawed and therefore, producing a manifestly unfair, flawed, or unjust result. These issues (which focus on how the decision was made) are entirely separate to the issue of irrationality which focusses on the actual decision. In summary an applicant seeking to complain of procedural unfairness under rule 28 must satisfy me that either: (a) express procedures laid down by law were not followed in the making of the relevant decision; (b) they were not given a fair hearing; (c) they were not properly informed of the case against them; (d) they were prevented from putting their case properly; (e) the panel did not properly record the reasons for any findings or conclusion; and/or (f) the panel was not impartial. The overriding objective is to ensure that the applicant's case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State 22.The Respondent did not submit any representations in response to this application. Discussion 23.Irrationality - the main focus of the Applicant's submissions in respect of both grounds is the evidence of a COM who was responsible for the November 2024 Part C report. The application disagrees with the panel's reliance and weight placed on that report as it is said that it was based on a single interview with the Applicant at a time when he was unwell. The author of that report, unlike other professionals in the case, did not support the Applicant's release. The application submits that it was irrational for the panel to place such weight on the report rather than on the reports of those who had had more interaction with the Applicant. 24.Contrary to the claim in the application, the panel did not ignore the views of the COM and POM who had had significant contact with the Applicant. As the panel itself noted, it considered the opposing recommendations of those who gave evidence at the hearing. The 2024 Part C report was not based on conduct or responses given in a short interview at a time when the Applicant was unwell but was based on a full consideration of the case. The COM who authored that report noted the Applicant's "entrenched anti-social attitudes and beliefs" , his non-compliance within the prison regime and for the reasons set out in her report could not support release. The panel was entitled to prefer that reasoned conclusion. The panel rejected the POM's assertion that if the Applicant was struggling or not coping or resorting to illegal substances that would be identified by those supervising him, as that had not occurred on his previous recall. The panel was also entitled to reject the COM's assertion that the inconsistency of different professionals supervising would not have assisted the Applicant. There was no guarantee that could not arise again. In those circumstances the panel could not be said to be irrational in rejecting the speculatively hopeful conclusions of the POM and COM. The panel has set out its reasons for preferring the evidence of the author of the 2024 Part C report. Those reasons which are soundly based and clearly set out cannot be in any way described as irrational and this ground therefore fails. 25.Procedural unfairness - the application submits that "in rejecting the opinion of the psychologist, it was procedurally unfair for the panel not to adjourn for a new assessment" . 26.Again the panel has given reasons for its conclusions, it is not necessary for a panel to require the attendance of every report writer with whom they disagree. The panel was required to make findings on the basis of the evidence presented. There was no suggestion that the panel needed further clarification from the psychologist or to question the psychological assessment further. There was no procedural unfairness in the panel not adjourning for a further report where an adjournment had not been requested and they could and did make findings on the report as served. This ground fails. Decision 27.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Barbara Mensah 17 December 2025